User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 13
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In regards to the Ventura Freeway
See my proposal at Talk:California State Route 134. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
- Sister projects: A handful of happenings
- WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
- News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup
- Features and admins: This week in approvals
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
- Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
- News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
WikiProject U.S. Roads in the Signpost
I know you recently announced your retirement, but I thought you might still be interested since you founded the project:
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Roads for a Signpost article to be published in early May. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010 USRD newsletter
 | ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
- From the team: Introducing Signpost Sidebars
- Museums conference: Wikimedians meet with museum leaders
- News and notes: Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
- In the news: Making sausage, Jimmy Wales on TV, and more!
- Sister projects: Milestones, Openings, and Wikinews contest
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Gastropods
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
- Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia
- News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news
- In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
- From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted
- Commons deletions: Porn madness
- Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide
- News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All
- In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
- News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum
- In the news: In the news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
- News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Wikipedia Bill", unsourced bios declining
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
- Photography: Making money with free photos
- News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
- From the team: Changes to the Signpost
- News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more
- Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
- News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news
- In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
- Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons
- News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U2
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
- Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content
- In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?
- Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
- Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature
- Features and admins: This week's highlights
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
- UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups
- News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
New Zealand State Highway 8
The reason I'd the the browsee link for the next route to 1 on New Zealand State Highway 8 was because it was the last of the National routes according to Template:New Zealand State Highway navbox but if you think that 10 is a better link then I'll leave it at that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
- News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
U.S. Routes
Shouldn't U.S. Route 45 be considered a major route? It crosses the entire country and is just as important as others endinag in 0 or 1. Also, U.S. Routes 75, 77, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, and 95 should all be considered major, as they either do or did cross the whole country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1291998 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. Major routes as defined by AASHTO are only ones ending in 0 or 1, with possibly US 2. No exceptions. --Rschen7754 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the deal, you're calling the second longest and formerly longest U.S. Route unimportant. U.S. Route 6 is an important route and you should know it. It provides a major corridor alternate to Interstate 80 and Interstate 90, but furthermore is a city road. It travels through the Salt Lake City area, Denver, Omaha, Des Moines, Davenport, Moline, Chicago, South Bend, and Erie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1291998 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Take it to Template talk:U.S. Routes - we've decided to only highlight routes ending in 0 or 1, with US 2, and while you're welcome to try and get consensus for your changes, it probably won't happen. --Rschen7754 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Geocoding
If you can't tell, I'm all for geocoding roads, but it is imperative that it be done correctly. I took my original thoughts from the other day and expanded how I think it should be done. Check out my sandbox on it to see what I'm talking about. –Fredddie™ 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would definitely be doable. --Rschen7754 06:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you that every intersection should not be geocoded. Take I-5 for example. I don't think it would be unreasonable to find an intersection every 150 miles or so and tag it. It would draw a decent line that shows where it is without creating an obscene amount of dots on the GeoHack maps. –Fredddie™ 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Admin/Noticeboard discussion that you closed
On July 16th you closed this Admin Notice. The charges had not been addressed yet. Could you please address them.
User Huey45 is acting in bad faith
Huey45 says…
“I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”
In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. This is clearly a deliberate lie. Huey has repeatedly misrepresented the content of sources. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
What's even more troubling is that other users didn't challenge huey's statements and instead say that I shouldn't call huey45 a liar even though he is clearly acting in bad faith.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. WP:ANI is not for dispute resolution. You haven't indicated what an administrator could do, if anything. --Rschen7754 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This not a dispute, he deliberately lied about the content of the sources. He is acting in bad faith so I went to the ani board.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010
- News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports
- In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed
- WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
- News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee
- In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more
- Sister projects: Strategic Planning update
- WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
- WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
RE: San Onofre State Beach External WebLinks
Your response: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Rschen7754 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The website www.SanOnofreBeach.org is not a personal website. It serves the same purpose as SanOnofre.com. The purpose of this site is for informational purposes both pertaining to news and recreation at San Onofre State Beach. In addition, it is primarily used as a source for directions, location information, background as well as a resource guide. Please advise why you feel this site is not a valid site to be referenced as a source on Wikipedia second to SanOnofre.com. (SanOSleuth (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC))
- This does not meet the reliable source or external link guidelines for Wikipedia. No, it's not a personal website, but that's not the only criteria for disqualification of a link. --Rschen7754 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Summer 2010 USRD newsletter
| | ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
The Signpost: 23 August 2010
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
About: removal of "south to north" sub-text on B.C. 91A article as well as other articles, compromise
In my opinion this is something that may really need to be cleared up. Without that small bit of text that says which direction the exit list is in (i.e. the exits are listed from south to north), there is no way to tell which side of the exit list is which end of the highway - i.e. north, or east. This is probably more evident in in exit lists that do not list "northern terminus" or "southern terminus" at each end of the lists (i.e. in favour of "continues as <insert route here>"). I'm thinking the best compromises are either the required use of the words northern, western, etc. on each end of the exit list, the requirement of exits to be listed in a certain direction (i.e. north to south) or a small bit of text either before the exit list or in the legend section of the bottom stating direction, if there aren't already ways to make this clear - and if there are, that it be an imposed requirement for all exit lists. Since this issue has involved one particular exit list so far and currently remains between us, I've decided to bring it here before going to WP:RJL to discuss. -Deltanalliance (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not necessary. The United States never uses text like that since all of its lists (and the route description) follow the convention of going from south to north. "Northern terminus" and "Southern terminus" are redundant for the same reason. --Rschen7754 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Two secondary notes, the two ends are listed in the infobox as "South end:/North end:" as long as
|direction_a=South |direction_b=Northis set. Of course with some oddball highways that have a southern and a eastern terminus, like Interstate 69 in Michigan, or another combination of directions, then the infobox will reflect that. To put the termini notes in the junction list table is redundant. All junction/exit lists should start with the lowest distance measurement/exit number and work to the highest measurement/exit number, which in the US should be south to north and west to east. I believe Canada follows the same convention for distance measurement and exit numbering as well. Where there are exceptions, only then is a note above the table needed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)- Very well, it appears that it already is standardized that all exit lists be written from south to north or west to east to follow exit numbering, with some minor exceptions so I believe any more discussion is unnecessary. -Deltanalliance (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Two secondary notes, the two ends are listed in the infobox as "South end:/North end:" as long as
The Signpost: 30 August 2010
- In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities
- Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000
- Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?
Edit to I-80 in California
You reverted my change and quoted WP:RJL as stating says the list "is necessary" (for some reason that means shouldn't be collapsed).
WP:RJL doesn't say when a list is necessary as you say it does. It merely says how to lay them out when you use them. Bollinger (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per both WP:USRD/STDS and WP:CASH every article where a junction list is applicable needs one. --Rschen7754 05:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Collapsible tables aren't always a good thing in general. They're not allowed for tables of information not covered in prose. (See MOS:COLLAPSE.) Since the postmile information is not covered in the prose, and not all junctions or exits along a roadway will be explicitly covered in the route description, the table is not a duplicate of information. That means it should not be collapsed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 September 2010
- Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky
- WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force
- Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th
- Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more
- Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management
September 2010
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Template talk:Infobox Australian road. This comment was hardly good faith, you didn't take in the concerns I had and is supported by the other editors[1][2]. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is applicable; I am stating that your concerns seem to be a matter of personal preference. --Rschen7754 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- This warning is very much applicable as it wasn't my personal preference or point of view, it was a concern which other editors also feel but stating "This just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is very much bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- None of the example arguments at aforementioned page are made in bad faith, and I realize that you make your arguments in good faith; however, it's still personal preference. I don't see how your templated message applies (whatever happened to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars anyway? </tangent>). If you still have a concern with my comment, you are welcome to take it up at the proper Wikipedia venue. --Rschen7754 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep throwing the essays which are powerless and not enforceable, it isn't a person preference since I'm basing my concerns on the current Australian highway template, as well as other templates and the fact that highways in Australia are known by name and not the route number. Bidgee (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- None of the example arguments at aforementioned page are made in bad faith, and I realize that you make your arguments in good faith; however, it's still personal preference. I don't see how your templated message applies (whatever happened to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars anyway? </tangent>). If you still have a concern with my comment, you are welcome to take it up at the proper Wikipedia venue. --Rschen7754 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- This warning is very much applicable as it wasn't my personal preference or point of view, it was a concern which other editors also feel but stating "This just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is very much bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I have posted A1 (Croatia) article for hwy peer review as I'd like to improve it sufficiently for GAN at least. I saw you reviewed similar articles before so could you please review this one as well. Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 September 2010
- News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
- Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment
- Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration
- WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab
- Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Please cease
Please cease converting infoboxes in the UK. You have done nothing but introduce inaccuracies with careless editing. By all means continue if you are going to present correct information, if you are unable to do this then I suggest you stop. If you introduce further inaccuracies into articles following this warning then I will have no choice but to take the matter further. I have fixed the inaccuracies for how, but in future I will just revert on sight when inaccuracies are introduced as it's essentially vandalism if you continue, choosing to ignore this warning. Jeni (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Along the lines of the directions, since other editors and project standards aren't as clear on the issue as USRD (always south to north or west to east with exceptions noted up front) I've been leaving the directional indicators out completely unless there was a map or other indication in the article to identify which is why. That's because so many of the articles have stated direction=East–West but the infobox is really in West–East order and the order given for the region isn't consistent. Some regions' articles varied inconsistently between East–West and West–East in displaying on the infobox without any indication that the first direction mentioned corresponded to the first terminus listed. In this case, you can't make any assumptions, even though the previous readers of the article would make the same logical assumption and have come away with the same misinformation. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 September 2010
- From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost
- News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes
- In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories
- Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 27 September 2010
- News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
- WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Inaccuracies
Please do not introduce inaccuracies to articles as you did on A500 road and M25 motorway, this is considered to be disruptive editing. Creating links to subjects which do not accurately describe what is being shown is inappropriate. Jeni (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 October 2010
- WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes
- Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news
The Signpost: 11 October 2010
- News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more
- In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution
- Features and admins: Big week for ships and music
- Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 18 October 2010
- News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief
- WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics
- Features and admins: A week for marine creatures
- Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review
- Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months
- Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news
Fall 2010 USRD newsletter
| | ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
The Signpost: 25 October 2010
- News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced
- In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news
- WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?
- Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
- In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric
- WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey
- Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails
- Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days
- Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news
Notification
As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 November 2010
- News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity
- WikiProject report: WikiProject California
- Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science
- Election report: The countdown begins
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 15 November 2010
- News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
- WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon
- Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains
- Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 22 November 2010
- News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations
- Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder
- WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Candidates still stepping forward
- Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Table format
Just a thought - you might want to make your candidate guide use "wikitable sortable" rather than just "wikitable". Happy thanksgiving for yesterday! FT2 (Talk | email) 14:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
- In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report
- WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Voting in full swing
- Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
arbcom questions
Hi Rschen, just saw your questions and answered them both, here excuse me for the delay, missed them in the melee, thankyou. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
An Invite to join the Highways WikiProject
|
|
|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Highways - - - - - - - - - - - - | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hi, Rschen7754, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the International Highways WikiProject and its new regional taskforces! The Highways WikiProject is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, or anything related to International Roads. This includes supporting existing regional road WikiProjects and fostering the development of new international highway WikiProjects. We have recently created five regional task forces focused on Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Latin America.
To improve road and highway articles, here are guidelines for B class criteria. Please add any higher GA, FA quality articles to the international roads portal. Also, please help out by inviting new or unfamiliar editors with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/New articles/Invite template. | ||
| We look forward to welcoming you to the project! | ||
WP:WASH activity check
Hello fellow Wikipedians! This is a message from the Washington State Highways project. You are being contacted as you are listed as a member of the WikiProject. We are conducting an activity check, and if you do not add "Aye" in the Dec 10 Check field of the participants list, you will be removed from the project participants list. Should you wish to leave the project, simply delete your user name from the list.
Thanks!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Washington State Highways at 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC).
NM
Hey, would you mind if I created a taskforce page for New Mexico on WP:USRD, just so I can keep track of some of the resources I need for working on the articles? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- If there's enough activity to justify a taskforce you can go ahead and create one. Another option is dumping the links on WP:USRD/RES. --Rschen7754 23:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fortguy (talk · contribs) has been poking his head into NM lately too, and honestly at the beginning of the new year, I am gonna want some help with a red link reduction for NM, so having basic info for NM would be useful. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The "official" process to creating a taskforce is through WP:USRD/SUB (just ignore PCB's old proposal). We haven't had a new taskforce in years, so this is a relatively new process for most of us. --Rschen7754 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fortguy (talk · contribs) has been poking his head into NM lately too, and honestly at the beginning of the new year, I am gonna want some help with a red link reduction for NM, so having basic info for NM would be useful. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 December 2010
- News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
- WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak
- WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
- Features and admins: Birds and insects
- Arbitration report: New case: World War II
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Conflict of opinions over WikiProject banner tagging
I confess to becoming frustrated with the state of our projects current dilemna and have opened up an incident request at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardhere for clarification. Please take a moment and add your comments so we can get this resolved. --Kumioko (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I delinked the 22 articles our projects had in common
I was curious to see how many articles we have in common...22 including 1 book and 2 categories. I have delinked them. In the future I will make every effort not to edit any of the USRD articles. You are free to edit any WPUS articles you wish. We welcome all help. --Kumioko (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your support in your voter guide, as well as your other thoughtful observations. They are appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Valiant return triple crown
Virginia Route 27
Thank you for your GA review. In the future, it may help if you leave a note on the talk page of the nominator. I only discovered your review when I scanned the WP:GAN page and notice that the nomination was missing. Racepacket (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 December 2010
- Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: The community has spoken
- Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
WikiProject U.S. Roads Triple Crown
Vroom, vroom... Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the crown sign lead you on the highway to more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 December 2010
- News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief
- Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland
- Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Majestic Titans
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Ho ho ho
 | Merry Christmas to you! My my, how this year has flown by, and hopefully next year is prosperous for us all. And may the GA and FA gods shine upon yourself and the project in the new year. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 27 December 2010
- Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting
- WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Turning Ten
On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" & "Wikipedians in Southern California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle. Tinkermen (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Winter 2010 USRD newsletter
| | ||||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter | ||||
|
|
Project reports for
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||||
- —
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
Chula Vista
I saw you work with road articles and highways. I thought you would maybe be interested in getting California State Route 125 to GA maybe or atleast in good shape. It is an important to modern day Chula Vista and im trying to expand Chula Vista coverage for its centennial this year but some things i dont know much about like roads. Its ok if you dont want to work on it or interested Spongie555 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I had the time I would, but unfortunately I'm a full-time student and don't have the time to devote to such an endeavor. :( If you want feedback or advice let me know though. --Rschen7754 09:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think still needs to be done to get it to GA? Spongie555 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- California State Route 78 is an example of a FA and while all FAs are different, that is a decent example. The article actually isn't that bad off compared to a lot of the other CA articles. The main things I see to get to the GA standard are 1) sourcing the history, 2) writing a "Future" section dealing with the proposals to extend the highway and 3) making sure the article complies with WP:MOS, WP:USRD/STDS and the WP:GA criteria. As far as #1, since the highway was built very recently, you can probably go through newspaper articles and source most of it, you've already got a decent outline there. Same for #2, though it'll be more difficult to find. --Rschen7754 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think still needs to be done to get it to GA? Spongie555 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news
Template:USRmap listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:USRmap. Since you had some involvement with the Template:USRmap redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Admrboltz (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Alberta highway articles
Greetings Rschen7751. When you have a moment, can you comment on my request for direction here? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
why ending in 5 and 0 only?
You reverted an edit of mine on I-90 and commented “ending in 5 or 0 only” why is that? Sara goth (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:USRD/STDS. --Rschen7754 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool, Thank you for your time and the info. Sara goth (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
Non-notable articles
Please see the reply that I left at User talk:Racepacket. I am waiting for references (I can't find any) and if they are not forthcoming, I will take the articles to AfD. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
ANI Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bill william comptonTalk 18:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
SMasters has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
California 180 Edit
I am just curious as to why you state that my addition to this particular page wasn't constructive. The fact that the Fowler Interchange is named after my daughter is very constructive. She is one of only two civilians in California who have a Freeway Interchange named after her. Unless you are going to edit the page and put the name into the table for that particular Interchange. Right now it just says open December of 2009. Just curious...should that be it's own page? Thank you for your time. Ghost101 2004 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Rschen7754 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No, but it is a history site and she is a part of it, and a part of the California 180 Exchange. Because of her death, there are new flagging laws in effect in the state. She is a part of law now...not just a memorial.Ghost101 2004 (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The way it was phrased made it sound like an obituary. I can list several things wrong with your edit: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI (you're definitely not a neutral party), Wikipedia:Recentism, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a history site. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but Wikipedia is a professional-quality encyclopedia, not a memorial site. If you want a memorial site, there are plenty of free web hosting providers out there. --Rschen7754 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The way it was phrased was taken from the first bookmark on the page. I didn't write that, but your reference did. If you are not going to be accurate about the substance of your articles, then so be it. Not my loss. Why would I want my daughters name mentioned on here anyways? She is in the law books and on the 180. I find it amusing that there are pics of Biola and Kerman on there. If you haven't heard by now those are memorial sites...lol! Good day!
- So now you've got plagiarism to add to that as well. At Wikipedia we don't do plagiarism and it can get your account blocked. --Rschen7754 01:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Block it, I will be deleting it...:) You are extremely rude and I don't deal with people such as you. Get your education and take a class in dealing with people, cuz, you are lacking... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost101 2004 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ghost101 2004, I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I'm agreeing with Rschen here in general. Your edit, [3] did a number of different things. To address the first part, your addition broke a reference in the article. Second, as for the paragraph you added to the end of the route description, it's a bit too much information. Most highway articles don't cover any memorial highway names applied to the roads. Several of them that I write on roads in Michigan do though. When I've added them, they're similar to what's done on U.S. Route 131 or U.S. Route 41 in Michigan. I give them a separate section and cover all of the named sections of the road. Each one is given an appropriate weight relative to the whole article. To be honest, these sections aren't added until the rest of the article is pretty much complete to avoid overwhelming the content of the article. SR-180 had two paragraphs on 112 miles and one paragraph on a single interchange. Can you see where your addition unbalanced the content? Most of your addition wasn't even about the road, focusing instead on your daughter. I'm sympathetic, but we just don't do that sort of thing around here, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
Starting a new conversation Re Hollywood Freeway
Started a section on the talk page. We need to have full discussion and engage community input. This is much better than edit warring. --Oakshade (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Issues
I don't want to comment on the RfC. I just want to work on the articles I've been involved with and be left alone. " Wikipedia:Peer review/Netball in the Cook Islands/archive1 (diff | hist) . . (+1,774) . . Racepacket (talk | contribs) (→Netball in the Cook Islands: start peer review)" Stuff like that makes it very difficult for me as all I want to do is be left alone. I promise not to edit articles that he has been involved with. I promise to stay away from running. I promise not to peer review his articles. I promise not to Good Article his reviews. I just want to be left alone! What will it take to be left alone? --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Rschen7754 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-04/Technology report - it's not live yet...
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Racepacket has yet to comment on my proposed solution because neither you nor Dough have indicated an opinion of it. He's said that he's running the "risk that the other two will jump back in and ask for more". Can you comment on the RfC/U talk page to indicate your opinion of the specific proposal so that maybe he'll finally indicate his opinion of it? Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
ok
That doesn't go down well with me..... anyhow, who will then review my GA article? Thanks for telling me. --TIAYN (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Arbcom notes
Noticed you linked to my talk page on your statement. Racepacket made a reply, and I've updated my talk page for it. You should update the diff link.[4] - Zero1328 Talk? 07:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 April 2011
- Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?
- Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news
I-8 state details
I discovered an IP had found nearly every state-detail article that had been started (infobox, two- or three-sentence lead, and junction list) and then redirected back to the main article. Two of those articles were I-8 (CA) and I-8 (AZ). That got me thinking, since the consensus was to only have one article since I-8 is so short, can we delete the state detail articles and then recreate them as a redirect just so we can enforce that consensus? –Fredddie™ 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I should direct you to Special:Contributions/81.190.241.34 if you haven't seen it already. It seemed far too calculated for it to be random... –Fredddie™ 17:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit so fast? How is it "not encyclopedic?" I-405 detours (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a news site, and the closure of one off/onramp among hundreds is not significant in the long run. --Rschen7754 22:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 April 2011
- News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news
- WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
ArbCom take 2 and Racepacket
As it appears that the RfC is not closing soon and that my issues have been largely ignored on the previous ArbCom and Racepacket appears unwilling to give on the issue of his involvement with netball, I am willing to be a party to the second one. Below is a copy of the text that I intend to post. If you could use this to help write a summary for ArbComm, that would be fantastic. It may be better to describe the section as LauraHale/women's sport instead of netball as the major involvement wasn't so much the topic as his pursuit of me personally.
Anyway, onewards with the personal statement from hell...
This is my statement. I did not involve myself in the original arbcom proposal because I was optimistic that I would not be needed, that the RfC for Racepacket would result in him being prohibited from my writing areas, and that I would be left alone. I was also concerned that Racepacket would be willing to go further and create real life consequences for my on wiki activity as he had previously sought to do so. The latter part has been my major prevailing concern regarding participating since it was brought to my attention. In the end, all I really want to do is edit women's sport articles and sport articles about oceania and be left alone in peace. I would still be willing to honor this attempt to reach an agreement for disengagement.
Personal back story: I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia. People I know at the Foundation know this. It is something that I have routinely said for about four or five year. Because of increasing contact with Wikimedia Australia and heavy involvement by my department and University on WMF, as a result of an interest in increasing the visibility of women's sport, and because I wanted to encourage others to edit Wikipedia to improve its content, I decided to contribute to Wikipedia. It is difficult to talk to people about Wikipedia and its culture, and how to edit Wikipedia if you have not done so yourself. I started to do this in January or February of 2011. I started working on netball because it is a women's sport article. There is a major championship coming up. The topic did not seem very controversial to me because the topic should not generally attract the attention of men or Americans given the nature of the sport. I chose to learn about Wikipedia editing through the Good Article and Featured Article process. This was for three reasons: 1. I wanted to improve the netball article so that it could potentially be on the front page during the netball world championships in July. 2. I have a friend who has gone through the process and the process was described to me as a good way to learn about Wikipedia. 3. On a personal level, I liked the rigour involved with citations and research. This would be a challenge to find citations to support the text and a learning opportunity in terms of teaching myself about a popular women's sport. Prior to my involvement in January/February 2011, I had fewer than 100 edits to Wikipedia and have never substantially contributed to any article. In effect, I was a newbie and I did not know much about the process going into this. When possible, I contacted other knowledgable contributors online and off for help to guide me through the GA process, especially when things appeared to go south.
For me, this situation has involved four failed GAs, two passed GAs, one FAC, one peer review, two projects (Good Articles, Olympics), meta, a project proposal (women's sport), a block for Racepacket for disruptive editing, a sock puppeting investigation, repeated comments to my talk page, comments to other people's talk pages, an RfC, changes to the GA proposal process to say that nominators can remove their own nominations being required, an article being locked, and a previous ArbCom nomination. I'm not brief by nature and given the huge number of pages and projects involved, this isn't brief. It also isn't entirely comprehensive.
- Outing my real life identity by contacting who he thought was my employer and connecting my online identity with my offline identity as a scholar.
- Tried to get me into trouble with the organisation he thought was my employer.
- Despite my denials of a connection to WMF, asked if I was not claiming to work for them
- Made claims about my research not in good faith that misrepresented my work professionally
- Blocked for disruptive editing by making a single edit to create a failed GA review for an article in the middle of a name change
- Additional block for suspected sockpuppeting to get around a block
- Sock puppet editing of an article that he was in dispute over
- Repeated edits to Talk:Netball/GA1 after it had been closed/withdrawn[5][6][7][8][9]
- Closed nomination had to be locked because of repeated edits
- Failed GA after it had been withdrawn by nominator
- Repeatedly editing a user's talk page in dispute with despite requests not to: [10][11][12]
- Asked others to take over the GA nomination of the netball article so he could continue to review it despite my having withdrawn it [13][14]
- Starting another netball GA despite being in dispute with nominator on another article
- Quick/failed a third Netball GA nomination by me despite ongoing RfC and despite with nominator
- Continued to comment on new Netball GAs nominated by me despite ongoing RfC and dispute with user: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
- Proposed merge between two completely unrelated netball topics
- Engaged in a personal attack on me
- Followed me over to Olynmpic project with the arguement of No Olympic Recgonised Sport (despite repeated citations having been provided elsewhere.)
- Got involved in a peer review of netball article he had GA failed despite RfC asking for disengagement and knowing that I found his continued involvement with articles I was editing distressing [24][25]
- Sought an outsider to help him when I reverted his peer review of an article he had failed and despite my requests for him to stop interacting with me and the RfC asking him to disengage from involvement with netball articles
- Appeared on a proposal for a topic not previously involved in but where he has a dispute with major participant
- Alleged no consensus when there was clearly consensus
- Disputed the truth of the article despite citations to support claims [26]
- Overstepped GA process, violating good fatih, by asking for verification of text sources and offering to go to the American Library of Congress to verify sources [27] This genuinely bothered me as it felt like harrassment. The books in question are not available at the Library of Congress. Beyond this, it felt indicative of American editing bias, because it assumed that non-American texts would be available there. The issue of pro-American/anti-world thinking as a source of general contention between myself and Racepacket.
- Paraphrasing issues[28] This bothered me because some one who was at one point indefinetely blocked for similar issues was going after for me this, offered no proof to support his accusation, wanted to iniatiate personal, and off wiki contact. The two issues combined of no support for this statement combined with requests for personal, off wiki contact felt like harrassment. As I was/am relatively new to Wikipedia, I did not know where to bring these concerns. If this was done again in combination with the meta contact, I know I would immediately bring it to ANI. Had I done that with this accusation and the meta issue, we would likely not be here and Racepacket would be facing a much longer block.
- Responded antagonstically to my requests to the Good Article nomination process for help in dealing with my good article issues [29]
- On April 21, continued to imply I inappropiately paraphrased despite having no proof. Further, he suggested sanctions on my behavior based on his unproven assertions.
- As of April 21, continuing to bring up netball and sourcing issues [30][31]
- Ignores sources when serves his cause as he'd been given multiple sources to netball being Olympic recognised when reviewing that article and in article he reviwed about netball and the Olympic article
- I do think that it would be more helpful to the case though if you posted it yourself. I mean, not saying I'm not willing to help, but the more voices we have, especially from an eyewitness, the more help. --Rschen7754 06:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I intend to post it when the ArbCom thing is refiled. That's basically what my statement will be. If you have any further suggestions for what I should include, that would be helpful as I'd rather thoroughly like to make this case to once and for all to be done with this. I've posted it here so that you could basically see a summary of what happened when/if you repost so that you can have an easier time filling out the netball/LauraHale/women's sport section as last time, it had nothing. --LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)